Light On the Muhammadan Sunnah Or Defence of the Hadith
Reliability of the Companions
The issue of reliability of the Companions is quite critical, about which much talk was there, beside lengthy dispute throughout all ages. Hence this subject deserves good attention and much care so as to have moderate opinion about it, and any dispute be eliminated.
There was much dispute and controversy among Muslims regarding this reliability (adalah), while it being in itself an issue in which favour of the Qur’an and the Messenger can be clearly sensed. Thus it neither calls to disagreement, nor needs controversy. So is it right to enter into debate about an issue in which the merit of the Qur’an and the Messenger is established? A group of people have gone too far in this matter to the extent they deemed them (Sahabah) to be reliable in all, even those indulged in sedition (fitnah), or in whose hypocrisy a Qur’anic verse was revealed, making it impermissible to criticize anyone of them, or raise doubt about his riwayah, accusing anyone doing so with debauchery. 651 And this verily is an exaggeration in trust and extravagance in appreciation. Besides, it contravenes the principles stated in the Qur’an and Prophetic Sunnah regarding the firm evidences, and can never agree with the human tempers and nature.
It can be said that claiming the reliability of all the Sahabah, and consecrating books of hadith constitute the two main factors that facilitated for the enemies of Islam to attack it, and led to close-mindedness of its friends among thinkers! That is because adalah of all the Sahabah undoubtedly necessitates trusting whatever they narrate as cited in books of hadith, while it is known they contained many weak and poor traditions, that constituted source of harm and detriment.
If we intend to enumerate all the detriments that afflicted the Muslims as a result of that belief, it would be so lengthy, but we suffice here with stating only two detriments:
First: That intense dispute which inflicted the Ummah so seriously causing disunity among Muslims, from the days of Uthman till the present day and even to the days to come! This dispute scattered the Muslims, renderring them inconsistent parties, wrangling cults, and differing schools, either in rituals (ibadat) or transactions. And despite the efforts exerted by many ulama’ who endeavoured to reuniting the Muslims throughout hundreds of years, so as to make them hold fast together to the cable of Allah and not to separate, but the moth of disagreement was and is still eating into the bones of the Islamic Ummah, the fact that no one can deny.
Second: The fatal attacks and stabs that inflicted Islam everyday, because of what hadith books contained of traditions including superstitions and confusions, and other things that no free mind can approve of or right knowledge can support, till our religion came to be called Din of superstitions and misconceptions and that it being unfit and incompetent for ages of science and civilization. There is no dispute that those who reported those dubious traditions were the Sahabah themselves, and from them the narrators took and men of hadith inscribed in their books.
So if we exclaim that: The tribulation inflicting Islam is actually caused by two things: Absolute reliability of the Sahabah, and blind trust in books of hadith which contain together the poor and strong traditions, we would never alienate or neglect the truth.
If we go along the straightforward path, and obligate the express hujjah, following logic of reason (aql), adopting the programme adopted by contemporary ulama’ in studying the issues, unaffected by any conventional or passional impact whether in respect of analyzing the characters of the Sahabah or what they narrated, the truth will be manifested explicitly and light of Islam will brightly shine, and Muslims all over the world will hold fast to the cable of Allah, united and not separated.
And since the reliability of the Sahabah – as said before – is quite a perilous issue, I find it proper here to write this chapter so as to reinstate the matter aright and show – through strong indisputable evidences from the Book of Allah and His Messenger’s traditions – the correct aspect that safeguards us from committing a mistake and protects against nonsense.
Who is the Companion?
Before broaching the subject of reliability of the Sahabah, I have to define who the Sahabi is as identified by them (Sunnis), and the most adequate definition in view of the Jumhur (Sunnis) being that one mentioned by al-Bukhari:
In his book, 652 he said: Whoever from among Muslims kept company with the Prophet (may God’s peace and benediction be upon him and his Progeny) or saw him, he would be verily a Sahabi. 653
In his exposition for the definition of al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani declared: What he wants to say is that the epithet Suhbat al-Nabi (Companionship of the Prophet) fits that who kept company with the Prophet (S), a degree less than what the word suhbah means lexically, though the prevalent norm stipulated for it some association (mulazamah). It is also used for anyone who saw him (S) even from a remote distance.
What al-Bukhari stated is the preponderant notion, but is it stipulated that the seer should discern what he has seen! Or mere seeing being enough? Still there is controversy regarding this point but the practice of those who were counted among the Sahabah indicates the second option. As they mentioned Muhammad ibn Ali Bakr al-Siddiq, who was born only three months and few days before the demise of the Prophet, as recorded in the Sahih, stating that his mother Asma’ bint Umays gave birth to him during the Farewell Pilgrimage (Hijjat al-Wada’), before enterring Mecca, in the last days of Dhu al-Qa’dah in the year 20H.
Ali ibn al-Midyani says: Whoever accompanied or saw the Prophet
even for only one hour, should be counted among the companions of the Prophet. It seems that they supported this definition with a hadith reported from the Prophet as saying: Some people will launch invasion, when it will be said to them: Is there among you anyone saw the Messenger of Allah? (When an affirmative answer is given) Then they will verily conquer.
In his introduction to the book al-Isabah fi tamyiz al-Sahabah, he (Ibn Hajar), in defining who the Sahabi is, said: The best definition I managed to get being: The Sahabi is that who met the Prophet (may God’s peace and benediction be upon him and his Progeny), having faith in him, dying as a Muslim, he will be counted among those who met him, an fought beside him or those who did not participate in a battle. Also is that who saw him by his own eyes, even if he did not sit beside him, and that who could not see him due to a casualty like blindness.
The ulama’ have – a manifested in the previous chapter — obligated investigation about narrators of hadith, sarcasting some and moderating some others. And they have right in this as it is improper to admit the claim of any man whatever he may be, without investigation or verification or scrutiny. While making jarh and ta’dil of the narrators an obligation incumbent upon every narrator whatever his status be, they could not transgress the boundaries of the Sahabah, as they held them all to be reliable not liable to criticism, nor sarcasm can be levelled at them. What they said in this regard: “Their carpet had been folded”(i.e. there is no room for attacking them).
The wonderful point here being that they adopt such a stance while the Companions themselves used to criticize each other and even charging each other with impiety, as stated before and will be manifested later on in this book.
In his al-Taqrib, al-Nawawi writes: The Sahabah are altogether reliable, those who were involved in the fitnah and others. Al-Dhahabi, in his Risalah, said about the trustworthy narrators:
If we open the door of jarh and ta’dil, a good number of Companions, Followers and leaders (imams) would enter it, as some of the
Sahabah charged each other with impiety, according to some interpretation!! And Allah is pleased with all and forgives them, as they are not infallible, and their disagreement or contending them can never make them mild in our eyes.
Then he said: But the Sahabah, are not liable to sarcasm, despite whatever happened, and even if they erred as other trustworthy men erred!! No one can be immune against mistake, but it being a very rare error causing no harm at all! As their reliability should be accepted and whatever they reported should be approved of, and acted according to, with which we charge Allah the Exalted.
While the Tabi’un are nearly free from anyone deliberately telling lies, but they may err and have misconceptions, and whoever committing very rare errors would be admitted, but that making multiple mistakes, though being among men of knowledge, his error would be forgiven too, with reporting his hadith and acting according to it. But determined ulama’ would hesitate in referring to narrators, with such description and acting alone in argumentation, as whoever making numerous mistakes, his hadith can never be used in dispute and debate. Concerning the companions of the Tabi’un – like Malik and al-Awza’i and their likes – they are also classified in the same categories, and it was found in their time some who would deliberately lie or perpetrate so many errors, as a result of which his hadith would be ignored. For instance, Malik who was known as the guiding star among the Ummah, could never be immune against sarcasm!! And if anyone talked against Malik while using him in argumentation, his talk would be for an excuse! And so also is al-Awza’i, who was thiqah (trustworthy) and hujjah (authority), and he probably reported hadith alone and misconceived, with his reporting from al-Zuhri being doubted! In his regard Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that he was of weak opinion and weak hadith. So also spoke that who could not yet acquainted with al-Zuhri since he dyed with black colour, was wearing like soldiers, and served Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik. This is a vast section. Also a reference should be made to Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, who was widely known as a virtuous, trustworthy and honest man, and a verifying memorizer
that rarely erring. But Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Birr said: I heard Muhammad ibn Waddah saying: I inquired Yahya ibn Mu’in about al-Shafi’i, when he said: He is not a thiqah. The clause of Ibn Mu’in
Beside Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, who was deemed trustworthy by Abu Hatam and al-Nasa’i, whereas al-Bukhari did not consider him an authority (hujjah)! 658 Also Sa’id ibn Abi Urubah, in whose regard Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: He is thiqah, an imam of bad memory, and his traditions were recorded in the books, but he was a fatalist (qadari).
And al-Walid ibn Muslim: He was the learned man of Damascus, thiqah, and a memorizer but he used to defraud from weak narrators, with his traditions being cited in all books. That was what we quoted of this treatise in brief.
In al-Ahkam 659 al-‘Amudi says:
The Sunnah Imams concurred in believing in the reliability of the Sahabah, with some of them holding: Their judgement in adalah is like that of those who followed them necessitating investigation and verification about their reliability in riwayah. Some of them said: They (Sahabah) continued to be reliable till the time when conflict and seditions erupted among them. After that we should look into the reliability of the narrator or the witness among them, when he being not widely-known to be reliable. Some others said: Whoever fought against Ali, being aware, is verily a debauchee of refuted narration and witness against the true Imam. Some others believed in rejecting the narration and testimony of all of them, as one of the two parties should be fasiq, and he is unknown and unidentified. 660
Al-Gazzali, in al-Mustasfi, says: Some people held them to be like others in respect of necessity of investigation. Some others said: They used to be characterized with reliability from the beginning till the eruption of battles and enmities, when the situation changed and blood was shed, the fact entailing investigation and scrutiny.
The basis upon which those believing in reliability of all the Sahabah depended was the hadith they used to report from the Messenger of Allah: Verily, my Companions are like the stars (nujum), whichever of them you follow, you shall be guided rightly. But this hadith is false and baseless.
A Research on Disagreement
Al-Imam al-Muqbili, 661 in his book al-‘Ilm al-shamikh fi tafdil al-haqq ala al-aba’ wa al-mashayikh, dedicated a separate chapter in which he discussed the issue of disagreement in religious affairs, including the reliability of Sahabah. Due to the numerous advantages and valuable rules it contained, I cite herewith a brief abstract of it:
Allah, Subhanahu, has hinted to difference in religion, reiterating this several times in His holy Book, as He is fully aware of its detriment in the world, repeating it in regard of the Children of Isra’il, saying: “And they were not divided until after the knowledge came unto them, through rivalry among themselves.” Allah said the truth, as we could not find disagreement but only where truth could be ascertained. Then came the Messenger of Allah (S) and forbade from suspicions entailing conflict, warning against them, like controvery about fate (qadar), regarding which the Almighty said: “O ye who believe! Ask not of things which, if they were made known unto you, would trouble you…” And the Messenger of Allah said: “Depart me as long as I leave you”. Allah, the Glorified, has perfected the Din on His Prophet’s tongue, so nothing drawing us near paradise but he would show it to us, and so also with the Fire, nothing was ignored by Allah or His Messenger. Because Allah never likes us to search for everything with our powerless minds, as all the world was created in a limited measure within His Knowledge, after which the apostles were sent to perfect that what completing the favour, and establishing the hujjah. Whatever other than this being only officiousness the detriment of which is feared and no benefit is expected. This mission was undertaken by the best of men, who used to evade disagreement,
making up for every slip made by them, not insisting on the wrong they did knowingly, as did by Talhah and al-Zubayr and ‘A’ishah. Those Companions who survived till after the demise of the Prophet, bore patiently despotic rulers till the emergence of heresies due to searching for whatever left by Allah and His Messenger, of which if there was any good for them, Allah would certainly make them acquainted with all these things through His Messenger never leaving them groping about awkwardly. Then some novel things appeared among Muslims, like talking about qadar and issue of creation of the Qur’an, and interfering in what occurred among the Companions, followed by debate before kings and emirs which turned to partisanship. Each party was claiming this to be religiosity, while in fact it is not so. But when they overleapt the bounds, not observing their limit at which Allah and His Messenger ordered them to stop, Allah forsook them alone bewildering them with dissension and making them taste the tyranny one of another. Consequently, one caliph would agree with those people, launching severe attack against their opponents, while another one would invalidate what the first one did, speaking ill of these and belittling those, till evil prevailed and people divided into schisms.
Sometimes we see someone convert from a madhhab to another for the sake of some shaykh, or a ruler or any other worldly cause and natural bigotry. It is also reported that Ibn Abd al-Hakam inquired for majlis (meeting) of al-Shafi’i after his death, when it was said to him: Al-Shafi’i said: Al-Rabi’ is more rightful to my majlis. Al that time he was enraged, converting to the Maliki school, compiling a book calling it: Al-Radd ala Muhammad ibn Idris fima khalafa fih al-Kitab wa al-Sunnah. Thus was mentioned by Ibn al-Sabki, and only Allah and those who are of sound instruction know well that truth (haqq) could never be wholly beside a certain party, and falsehood with the rest, but the truth – thanks to God – can never come out from among them altogether. In fact truth was quite on the side of those who committed themselves to what the Prophet (S) brought with him, and it is inevitable for him to err in his exertions too in respect of minor issues
not in major issues. And who can keep on his state and accept the teaching taught from Allah and His Messenger, never adopting any madhhab, preferring the ancestors to the Book and the Sunnah and abandoning this irremediable blight, committing himself to equity in reporting ? By God I know not anyone in all these extinct books but he would grope about and confuse, being bigoted to his madhhab without any fairness, referring the Book of Allah to his belief and perverting!
After exposing the biography of the mutakallimun, he embarked on talking about the narrators, saying:
These muhaddithun, who claim the Sunnah to be firm, forbidding from kalam (theology), 662 were afflicted with corruption and deviation more than others, as they being on the centre of way of the Shari’ah, and demorality, war, assault, serpents, scorpions, poisons and lions when being on the road are verily more detrimental than when they be on the sideways. However, their calamity being caused by indulgence in kalam, becoming more fanatic than the mutakallimun since the latters based their work on examination, without blaming the knowledge-seeker for discussion and putting questions and inventing explanations, rather counting this as a kind of elegancy and perfection. With succession of views, the latters, might discover the rapprochement in kalam of the two parties and alike, as falshood of determinism (jabr) was uncovered for the followers of al-Ash’ari, who clung then to acquisition and after finding it defective they converted to the Mu’tazilah school on the basis of meaning as stated before. Also establishment of option never appertains to the Mu’tazilah alone so as to be averse to it, but it being verily the Din and hujjah of Allah, and when being verified by any of the latters he would take easy what was aggrandized by the ancestors and be calm. While the muhaddithun have adopted something through the first sight, never criticizing, as if this being an innovation which they believed in, while it being an innovation from first to last, so why did they engaged themselves in it?! It seems that their indulgence was unintentionally, but they were enticed by the Satan saying to them: You are
Ahl al-Sunnah (followers of the Prophetic Sunnah), so who would defend it if you forsake these people? Thus they neither were satisfied with what they had, nor realized the intention of those people so as to be able to refute their claim!
Al-Imam Ahmad, with his full knowledge of the Sunnah and dedication to God the Glorious, was not ignorant of this, but when discussing the issue of creation of the Qur’an and was afflicted because of it, he considered it equal to Tawhid (monotheism) or even more! Once he was told that Muhammad ibn Harun said to Isma’il ibn Ulayyah: O the son of prostitutor! Do you claim the Qur’an to be invented? – or a similar expression! Ahmad said: May God forgive him (i.e. Muhammad ibn Harun). While Isma’il ibn Ulayyah was more entitled to imploring of Ahmad, since he was his equal in being an imam of knowledge and piety. And if supposedly he has erred in regard of what Ahmad alleged, then God’s forgiveness is certainly more expansive. And his error in its regard is only like that who assumes caliphate while being devoid of its provisions and traits, plunged (ya’uth)
May God forgive Ahmad, he has gone too far in bigotry in this issue, to the extent that whoever opposing him would be rebuffed with rejecting his riwayah, which being a treachery to the sanad. Because that who obligated approval of the report of the reliable, would obligate accepting such khabar, as he used to say: ‘We report from the Qadariyyah’, and when checking al-Basrah we will find two thirds of their people to be Qadariyyah, as reported in Tahdhib al-‘Izzi and other books.
This issue cannot exceed the limit if there being steadiness in the disagreement regarding the two issues, but he exaggerated and began to reject the waqif saying: So and so is an ill-omened waqifi.
not thiqah, and al-Daraqutni recommended to reject his hadith. Ibn Mu’in said about him: He is a liar, villain, enemy of Allah, and of no value, and also said: Ahmad turned mad, is he reporting from ‘Amir ibn Salih? Al-Dhahabi said: He is very weak…Ahmad has never reported from anyone weaker than him. Despite guluww of al-Dhahabi
be makhluq(invented) he is a disbeliever. That was said in regard of some people, among whom being Ibn Luhay'ah and others, and rather they said: Al-Muhasibi left the heritage of his father adding: the followers of two cults can never inherit each other, since his father was a waqifi.
Yahya ibn Mu’in, leader of jarh and ta’dil, said: ‘Amr ibn Ubayd was a dahri (atheist, sceptic)! When asked, who is the dahri? He replied: He who says: nothing…while ‘Amr was not so. Had we referred to the greatest of mutakallimun, or rather the venturous story-tellers, we would have never found anyone daring to that extent against a man known widely of knowledge, asceticism and gnosticism, followed by about half the Ummah. In regard of Unbasah ibn Sa’id ibn al’As ibn Umayyah, Yahya ibn Mu’in said: He is thiqah, and used to keep company with al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf; and so also said al-Nasa’i and Abu Dawud and al-Daraqutni, with al-Bukhari and Muslim reporting from him. Further al-Bukhari has reported from Marwan ibn al-Hakam, who accused Talhah while being among his army, and the one who prompted him to revolt against Ali, doing every sort of calamity. Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani, a leader of the recent narrators (al-Kamil), in his exposition on Marwan, said: If his companionship is proved, no vilification would affect him!! As if suhbah being like prophethood, or the Companion being in fallible,
him): Does this slave insult me?! If we intend to generalize the epithet of companionship from upward going downward, i.e. starting from the ancestors (sabiqun) up to that who could only see the Prophet, so from looking at the positions of extolling cited in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, we can distinguish between one telling of a lofty status the least of which being reliability, and one telling of some kind of honour, though the Prophetic distinguishing probably came very explicit as his (S) saying in regard of one poor Companion: “He is verily better than the earthful of this”, i.e. some of the heads among the latters in Islam.
Generally-speaking, whoever following up these and other cases among the Sahabah, he is either blind or feigning blindness. As reliability of some of them should be recognized out of necessity, who constitute the majority as stated before, in a way making it unnecessary to investigate their biographies. Among the Sahabah there being very few who were devoid of reliability, like wine-imbibers, so we should drive them out of reliability not out of companionship. Some of them have embraced Islam for fear from the sword (killing) like the freed prisoners of war (tulaqa’), 670 and others, of whom if his good state couldn’t be confirmed, he would be quite unknown for all, who being very rare in number. Nevertheless, reliability verily is not like infallibility (‘ismah), but people have exaggerated in regard of those whose companionship was confirmed in insisting on proving their adalah. Had we admitted the inclusion of subhah (companionship) and after it adalah to all, the case would not have reached that level portrayed by ghulat among the narrators.
If suhbah benefitted one like Bishr ibn Marwan, if supposedly it was proved, or al-Walid, it would become clear for us that no act would be detrimental along with companionship except infidelity, when suhbah would be greater than faith, and this belief would be more special than madhhab of Muqatil and his followers, the Murji’ah. And what is the position and consideration of the ahadith: “You don’t know what they have done after you”, which were successive (mutawatir) in meaning. Rather, if tawatur in
words was claimed in some of them that belief would be justifiable, and Sunnah-claimants have claimed companionship or its confirmation for those no evidence was established in their regard, deriving from it as many as they liked of ramifications, founding then the Din on this. Hasn’t God said: “If an evil-liver bring you tidings verify it...” in regard of a man of an ascertained suhbah,
No doubt al-Bukhari was one of the leaders of lofty muhaddithun, so how would be the case with those having lower position despite the fact that al-Bukhari evaded reporting from so many devout huffaz,
So is there jarh (defamation) in religion worse than this! And this being a warning only, as it is a vast section when opened for researchers to compile in it, this would take a full book. So also said the other muhaddithun in regard of their opponents in doctrines (aqa’id), that can be put to test. The evidence for this claim can be found in the books of jarh, from which we can meditate statements about the supporter and opponent, considering them as witness from the foes, and would that they made this inward and outward, but they say that they report from the innovators while treating them in such a
way. Yahya ibn Mu’in - when authenticating Sa’id ibn Khalid al-Bajali and being told that he was a Shi’i - said: a Shi’i and thiqah, and a qadari, thiqah.
Al-Ijli, described Imran ibn Hattan as a thiqah, while he flattered Ibn Muljam 675 (may God’s curse be upon him), saying:
O smite by a pious desiring nothing from it,
But to attain to pleasure of throne Owner!
Here we can identify who was pleased with killing of Ali, and who killed Talhah, and who killed al-Husayn, and how they were deemed trustworthy by others. While the faithful and true ulama and huffaz of the Ummah, like Hammad ibn Salamah - the known leader - and the ascetic scholar Makhul, were avoided and ignored by al-Bukhari and Muslim too. The beliefs and opinions held by the muhaddithun, differed much regarding the narrators, as we see the same man may be described once with the epithet Amir al-Mu’minim by some, and the biggest liar by others, or something alike. We can have a look into the two Sahihs, and see how their authors shunned the great imams, against whom malice should be harboured, and if avoiding the best of them was considered, it (malice) would vanish, and it would never affect the supposition of their truthfulness but only like a drop in the sea. And among the rijal they cited in their books there were some who were vilified by many leaders of hadith, and harshly attacked by some others, though they both - i.e. authors of the two Sahihs - would not be obliged but to act according to their ijtihad. More wonderful than this is the fact that their rijal included some whose ta’dil could never be established, but rather their position was like that of unknown or ignored ones.
In his exposition of Hafs ibn Bughayl, al-Dhahabi said: Ibn al-Qattan said: He is of unknown condition and unrecognized, meaning he was not known to be unreliable and he himself was unknown, gathering both the ignorances.
Al-Dhahabi said: I haven’t mentioned such kind (of people) in my book al-Mizan. Ibn al-Qattan said: He has discussed those subjects that were not broached by any leader (imam) or one lived contemporaneously with that man, indicating his reliability, which being something great. In the two Sahihs there can be found so many of these concealed pe4ople who were neither deemed weak by anyone nor considered unknown. In his tarjumah of Malik al-Khayr al-Zabbadi he said: Among narrators of the two Sahihs, there being a large number (of narrators) whose authentication was not confirmed by anyone. How marvellous is that! The reporting is done from the unknown while eminent leaders and compilers are abandoned because they believed in invention of the Qur’an or were among the Waqifah or something of the sort. What causes wonder here is the courtesy of al-Dhahabi when he said: “...and they are not unknown,” as that whose reliability was not proved would not be included with the evidences of khabar al-ahad relevant particularly to the reliable. Besides the term mastur (hidden, concealed) can never bring its owner into the fold of the reliable who being meant by proofs of approving the single (ahad) narrators. To ignore men like Abu Hanifah, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Ibn Ishaq and Dawud al-Zahiri, among whom some were admitted by people in the maghazi (moral lessons), and some others were imitated by half the Ummah, and reporting from an unidentified man that no one knows who is he and what is he.
My intention is not defaming or belittling the two Sahihs, but to make known that the corruption of disagreement has prevailed everywhere, and this is exactly what I intend to manifest out of inviting to disdaining from disagreement and conflict, the fact to be known for all.
In a footnote to this book, which is called al-Arwah al-nawafikh, al-Muqbili explained the statement “they claimed suhbah (companionship) and proved it for that no evidence was established for it in his regard, “saying” The outside aspect of this speech is the fact we reiterated before that they term something emerged in recent times, embarking then on interpreting the Book and the Sunnah with their renewed term... and suhbah has no legal
identity, but it and other words about merits of the Sahabah were used on the basis of lexical meaning. But the traditionists termed and decided, without any evidence, that the term suhbah was used for everyone saw the Prophet, or seen by the Prophet even when he was a child, provided that he be a Muslim, keeping this until death and not apostatizing. No equitable or sane man can doubt that these restrictions being only in terminology not necessitated by the language, as the derivation being from sahaba (accompanied) not from ra’a (saw) or sighted certainly or hypothetically, so as to include even the blind one. It was better for them to say close hypothetically or a similar expression, so as to include even the contemporary people who did not see the Prophet or even every and each one, as hypothesis has capacity to cover everything. This is verily the origin of misconception of the issue, as we cautioned previously against this mistake that was perpetrated by so many people.
After identifying the word suhbah (companionship), they added to it an appendix by cancelling what was practised by the Sahabah. Some of them disguised under claim of ijtihad, that could be proved false by exigency in numerous cases, and some others would declare openly! How wonderful is this impudence in claiming ijtihad on the part of Bisr ibn Arta’ah, 678 who was known of doing all kinds of evil, as he was envoy of the mujtahid Mu’awiyah, advisor of Islam in slandering Ali ibn Abi Talib and his party (Shi’ah). Beside Marwan and the debauchee al-Walid, and the ijtihad in swearing allegiance to Yazid and that who suggested it and endeavoured to achieve it or advocated it, beside innumerable cases. They claim that all these practices aimed only at gaining God’s pleasure, except some ignorant ones unaware of what they are saying, giving premises, nourishing on desire and blind imitation, that became their diet. After that on this basis they dared to construct identical things from which no one could be free, though they differed in religious status, with the purpose that the pious disdaining from approving such calamities. That who was absent in time of committing a sin but showed his consent then, would be viewed like that who attended and participated in it, and vice versa, as stated in the Prophetic hadith. 679
Refer to my reply to al-Ajjaj and others in my book Shaykh al-mudirah.
Fath al-Bari, vol. III, p.2.
Al-Allamah al-Muqbili, in his reply to those proving the companionship for that who saw the Prophet: They term something very late, coming then and interpret the Book and Sunnah with their abstract term. And suhbah (companionship) has no legal origin but only used lexically, and so also are the rest of words used for indicating the merits of the Sahabah. But the muhaddithun termed and decided, with no any proof, that suhbah is used for everyone the Prophet saw, or he saw the Prophet even if he be a child! on condition that he be a true Muslim, and dying on this without apostatizing.
Al-Isabah, p. 4.
Al-Taqrib, pp. 3 - 21.
Yahya ibn Mu'in was one of great leaders of jarh and ta'dil whose opinions about the rijal were deemed a decisive authority (hujjah).
The result of bigotry can be realized here.
If al-Bukhari does not depend on such lofty magnate as hujjah so on whom does he depend? You can see what al-Bukhari did to Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, from whom he disdained to report, as stated before.
Al-Ahkam, vol. II, p. 128.
Ibn Qutaybah, in Ta'wil mukhtalif al-hadith, writes: What is wonderful about them being their charging the Shaykh with falsity, without reporting from him what the traditionists agreeing with him, of censuring Yahya ibn Mu'in and Ali ibn al-Midyani and their likes, while they argue with the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (as hujjah) in cases not agreed by anyone of the Sahabah, though he was belied by Umar and Uthman and A'ishah (pp. 10, 11).
He is al-Shaykh Salih Mahdi al-Muqbili, one of Yemen mujtahidun. He died in 1108 H. In origin he was a follower of Zaydiyyah school (madhhab), seeking truth then by not imitating, which led him to abandon embracing any religion, and admitting the truth that is established on evidence. Al-Imam al-Shawkani certified his absolute ijtihad.
That is 'ilm al-kalam.
It is said: 'atha - ya'thi - and 'atha - ya'ith which is the severest kind of corruption. See al-Qirtayn, p. 43.
The waqif is that who never talked about the issue of creation of the Qur'an.
Al-Muqbili described al-Dhahabi as that who used to feign calumniating Ahl al-Bayt, being blind to their virtues and merits, taking the side of the Umayyads, particularly the Marwanis.
One of those discussing the issue of creation of the Qur'an was al-Bukhari who said: Our acts are created and our words are taken from our acts.
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, is the author of the famous book.
See their definition of the Sahabi, stated before in this book.
This hadith was said when Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf stickled with Khalid ibn al-Walid in one of the battles, and Khalid used harsh words against Abd al-Rahman. When this news reached the Messenger of Allah, he said: Never insult my Companions … (the hadith). Hence it is said in a certain occasion, and it was reported by Muslim.
Like Abu Sufyan and Mu'awiyah and their supporters.
That is, his being one of the Sahabah, who was al-Walid ibn Uqbah.
Like Qudamah ibn Maz'un.
It is him in whose regard the verse "…If an evil-liver bring you tidings, verify it…" was revealed.
Refer to what I stated earlier about this issue.
Ibn Muljam was the one who perpetrated the guilt of murdering Ali (A).
Al-'Ilm ol-shamikh, pp. 297-312.
Al-Arwah al-nawafikh, pp. 678-688.
Ibn Hajar, in al-Isabah reported that Mu'awiyah has delegated Bisr ibn Arta'ah to Yemen and Hijaz, commanding him to find those who followed Ali and kill them altogether. It was him who killed two kids for Ubayd Allah ibn Abbas.
Those who were considered among the Sahabah, some who carped the Prophet (S) in regard of the alms (sadaqat), and some who vexed him saying: He is only a hearer, and some who chose a place for worship out of opposition and disbelief, and separation among the believers, with those in whose hearts there was disease, and the disabled, and those asked to stay behind in the Battle of Tabuk, who were eighty-plus men, and swore to the Prophet who accepted their declaration. In their regard the verses: "They will swear unto you by God, when ye return unto them, that ye may turn aside from them; so turn ye aside from them; verily they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they did earn. They will swear unto you that ye may be pleased with them, but (even) if ye be pleased with them, verily God is not pleased with people who are wicked," were revealed. Al-Bukhari reported from Zayd ibn Thabit as saying: When the Prophet went out toward (Battle of) Uhud, some of his Companions retreated backwards, when a group said: We should kill them. Another group said: We should not kill them. At that time this verse: was revealed "What hath happened to you (that) ye are two parties about the hypocrites? Verily God hath reversed them for what they have earned…". Al-Raghib, in his Mufradat, said: "reversed them, meaning: he returned them to the disbelief." There is so much talk about this bad.